Hi, Thanks for the information.
> There are more files that have altered headers (though all with apache 2.0 > license) and are adapted from the following repository [1], That is unfortunate, both in changing the headers and that code doesn't have a clear license. 3rd party headers, even if they are Apache licensed should not be altered and without a clear license that code should have never been put into a release. Also From a quick glance I cannot see the code I noticed in the release in there. I could have missed it, or is it from another repository? > If we were to list product and version it would point to the same > product/version covered by our initial import. It has no separate > LICENSE/NOTICE file as it was never released standalone. One way to deal with this would be to donate that code via a software grant. > We could have a discussion to add the header to the code that > generates these files but my opinion is that it would clutter the files for > our users and bloat the format. I suggest you have that discussion. Files can get separated from their releases, and if they have no header saying what license they are under it can make things difficult. There are only few exceptions to this ASF policy [1] Thanks, Justin 1. https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
